Abortion - What do you think about it?

[Citizen_K]

Yeah, but the dads have just as much right when it comes to deciding on abortion: it's their child too for crying out loud !

What would you say about a custody battle: that the woman should always get the kid because she did all the work of birthing him? It's still his kid!
(Most of the women get sole or most of the custody anyway )

 

[The Troquelet]

Because in today's society women are the ones trained to raise kids. In the 19th century any divorces automatically gave all children (not to mention all property) to the husband.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Akka
No. Left alone, it will run through the uterus, seek an egg and unite with it. If it does not find one, THEN it will die.
Left alone, an embryon will go to the uterus, attach itself to it, and grow. If it can't attach itself, it will die.

Very well, the hair is sufficiently split. By the old by, did you happen to notice how I capitilised 'alone', almost as if I were implying that it was one that did not meet the egg, hmm? That's a mighty fine scarecrow ya got there.

Originally posted by Akka
Well, if you can't make the difference between a hope and a fact, I much better understand your total lack of logic and understanding.

Oh, so it's not a fact that an embreyo will develop a brain if nothing messes with it?

Originally posted by Akka
Completely different. A coma patient has a got a mind. If you kill him, you kill the mind. An embryon has not a mind. If you kill it, you DON'T destroy a mind.

A coma patient HAD a mind. Currently he is in the coma, a by definition mindless slumber. In that sense, he is identical to the baby in the womb. While neither has a mind yet, both are expected to someday, although the baby's expectation is nigh guaranteed, if nobody kills it first.

Originally posted by Akka
See as above. Hope is not fact. I can hope that you will owe me 10 000 $ in two years. So give me back the money NOW, you thief !

That's a mighty fine scarecrow ya got there.

Originally posted by Akka
Perhaps you should try to use logic and reason and disprove my points and not rely on others for that.

Ah, you are not an American, and are not familiar with our legal history. Roe vs. Wade is the famous abortion legal battle that the Supreme Court of the US used as an excuse to sidetrack the legislature and create a pro-abortion legal climate in the US. In it, the father sued the mother to prevent her from getting an abortion, and lost.

Originally posted by Akka
*sigh*
I have the feeling to talk to my 4-years old nephew. Can't even grasp basic concepts.
Someone that is in coma and have the hope to get out HAVE a mind ALREADY. It's not about FUTURE or HOPE or MAYBE. He HAS it. If you kill the guy, you destroy his mind. An embryon DO NOT HAVE any mind. If you kill an embryon, you DON'T destroy a mind.
But well, as you can't make the difference between hoping to have something and having it, I'm probably speaking in deaf ears.

*sigh* I am so beset by ignorance. Be-MOAN, be-WAIL, guh-NASH of my teeth. Dramatist. This patheic 'point' has been refuted. Give it up.

Originally posted by Akka
Oh God...

I recommend that you not call God's attention to yourself until your views are more in accordance with His. Just a thought. Pascal's Wager and all, you know?

Originally posted by Akka

Completely missed it, boy.
First : you don't KNOW that you will get a child in nine months. LOTS of embryons die naturally.

That's a mighty fine scarecrow ya got there. Let's just stick with the ones that women are trying to remove like some stubborn stain, shall we? Leave the straw-men for the farmer's corn patch.

Originally posted by Akka
Second : the coma patient, though in coma, still has his mind. If he recovers, he will awake with the memories he had before, so it's not like his mind is destroyed when he sink into coma, and another one appear when he gets out. It's the same. Hence the man in coma still has his mind. Hence if you kill him you destroy his mind.

But currently, he is effectively mindless, n'est ce pas? Just like a baby in the womb.

Originally posted by Akka
"Why do the born have more rights than the unborn ?"
A "unborn" that has a brain allowing him to feel has nearly as much rights as any "born" (I would allow his abortion only in case of medical reasons, as to not endanger the mother).
A "unborn" that has not reached this point has less rights, because it's not a being. Remember ? No mind yet. Yes, same explanation I already made three times in this post.

Same argument that I've shot down dozens of times, you mean. It is discrimination based on age, appearance, or mental handicap, your choice. And no matter which one you choose, it is morally repugnant.

Originally posted by Akka
Or if you wish that something which has no mind of its own get as much rights as a living, thinking and feeling human, well, why the dead have less rights than the living then ?

That's a mighty fine scarecrow ya got there. How do they have less rights? Their wills are enacted after their deaths, they have their own court of law in which those wills are debated, their graves are protected from molestation by all sorts of laws, and many of the wealthier dead retain their property inperpetuity, and the income from it is used to fund charitable contributions in their name for decades after they die.

This argument, like all of your previous ones, holds no water, and has no weight. Back to the flour mills, Pappy!

I own this debate.

 

[The Troquelet]

It's EMBRYO for crying out loud.

"A coma patient HAD a mind. Currently he is in the coma, a by definition mindless slumber. In that sense, he is identical to the baby in
the womb. While neither has a mind yet, both are expected to someday, although the baby's expectation is nigh guaranteed, if
nobody kills it first."

A baby is different from a coma patient and you said yourself why - the coma person HAD a mind BEFORE this situation.

Regarding Pascal's Wager:

"
Practical argument for belief in God formulated by B. Pascal. In
his Pensées (1657-58), Pascal posed the following argument to
show that religious belief is reasonable: If God does not exist,
the agnostic loses little by believing in him and gains
correspondingly little by not believing. If God does exist, the
agnostic gains eternal life by believing in him and loses an
infinite good by not believing. "

Since when is the reward you receive for your beliefs a good idea for choosing which beliefs to embrace?

 

[The Troquelet]

Oh, and stop trolling, would you?

If you devoted more of your posts to actual, reasonable arguments, and less to quotes and "That's a mighty fine scarecrow ya got there", I believe there is a measurable chance that some if not all people might actually see a sort of sense in your having a part in this debate.

 

[Fez_Monk]

I have changed my position on abortion. I have become pro life! But I am not interested in changing the law regarding abortion, I want to change the socioeconomic conditions that have made abortion so pervasive, and alert people to the fact that there are alternatives to abortion. It may sound idealistic; I don't care.

 

[The Troquelet]

It sounds like a solution to me!

 

[FearlessLeader2]

TheTroquelet:
What I am doing is called debating. In debate, one responds to the other's words. To keep people mindful of what I am replying to, I quote.

Because I am doing a splendid job of defending my position, and simultaneously attacking my opposition's position, they are resorting to the use of 'straw-men', arguments against obviously stupid things that I did not say, in the hopes that other readers will think that the stupid things are what I was saying, when in fact I did not. It will not work, because I can and will shout 'Straw-man!' every time it happens. The moral of the story is: 'Do not put words in FLs mouth. He bites.'

 

[FearlessLeader2]

And now, some more 'trolling', as TT would put it, or, as anyone reasonable would say, debating:

Originally posted by The Troquelet
It's EMBRYO for crying out loud.

"A coma patient HAD a mind. Currently he is in the coma, a by definition mindless slumber. In that sense, he is identical to the baby in the womb. While neither has a mind yet, both are expected to someday, although the baby's expectation is nigh guaranteed, if nobody kills it first."

A baby is different from a coma patient and you said yourself why - the coma person HAD a mind BEFORE this situation.

I speak of the here and now, not the then and there.

Originally posted by The Troquelet
Regarding Pascal's Wager:
"Practical argument for belief in God formulated by B. Pascal. In
his Pensées (1657-58), Pascal posed the following argument to
show that religious belief is reasonable: If God does not exist,
the agnostic loses little by believing in him and gains
correspondingly little by not believing. If God does exist, the
agnostic gains eternal life by believing in him and loses an
infinite good by not believing. "

Since when is the reward you receive for your beliefs a good idea for choosing which beliefs to embrace?

It isn't, but since some people need a 'logical' reason to believe anything, I offered it as a sop to the faithless. Obviously, God would look askance at anyone who chose to serve Him for such selfish reasons.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by monk
I have changed my position on abortion. I have become pro life! But I am not interested in changing the law regarding abortion, I want to change the socioeconomic conditions that have made abortion so pervasive, and alert people to the fact that there are alternatives to abortion. It may sound idealistic; I don't care.

I applaud your descision, and admire your intended methodology, but fear that you miss a vital point. Most abortions are performed for the sake of social convenience, not economic hardship. Better to do both at once. But carry the fight to thine enemy bravely!

 

[Immortal]

fearlessleader and I share similar beliefs.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

"Thank you for your support."
-Ed Bartles

 

[The Troquelet]

FearlessLeader2:

"Back to the flour mills, Pappy!

I own this debate."

"

*sigh* I am so beset by ignorance. Be-MOAN, be-WAIL, guh-NASH of my teeth. Dramatist. This patheic 'point' has been refuted.
Give it up."

 

[WinstonJen]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade


Is there any reasoning behind your petty insults boy, or just misplaced teenage angst?
It depends on the situation, and one believes in giving the child a chance at life, despite the circumstances of its conception. The mother is under no compulsion to keep the child, but there is no need to compound one crime with another.

Phillipe is right. If the mother goes ahead and has the baby, it will be a constant reminder of the rape to her.

 

[philippe]

Originally posted by philippe
well i think that abartion should be legal alway during the first 3 months of the pregnacy and after that period the mother must accept that its to late to abort the foetus.

why abortion?
1)by raping that you get pregnant thru it
2)if the mother is to young like those teenage mothers. a child who gets a child.
3)if the mother gets the baby by a affair
4)if the mother is psychally weak or mentally weak
5)(this one im against at but i can understand it)
if the foetus has the system of down or is gehandicapt.
(like a mother who doesnt want to care a mongol like they say for people who have the system of down
6)other reasons i might have forgot

anyway a abortion is always bad for the mother menthal health
always crying about not getting a child
but in some cases it can

heres my opninion again because i think that some poeple never looked at the first pages
i have this opnion pro-lifepoeple TRY to convince me this is wrong without flaming

 

[The Troquelet]

What's too young?

Why should they be pampered if they had an affair and didn't use birth control?

Define mentally weak.

Thos are all arguments and I am PROCHOICE! So I doubt your arguments are waterproof.

 

[allan2]

Troquilet: "Allan2, can you name ONE self-defense war in the past 50 yrs?"

I'm talking about from the standpoint of the footsoldier--responding to a statement that went something like: "most people in the military are either murderers or training to be." (Note this is a paraphrase, I'm too lazy to scroll back through all the posts.)

I DID say that the people who ORCHESTRATE wars (i.e. NOT footsoldiers) COULD be classified as murderers--definitely if they plan to create a war (for whatever benefits they may get from it), rather than react to genuine (or genuinely perceived) threats.

But the footsoldier is put into a field, with footsoldiers in different uniforms who will kill them unless they are killed first--and vice-versa. On that level, it IS self-defense (well, sort of a strange, mutual self-defense, a "chicken-and-egg" thing, but what would YOU do in that situation?).

So that is why I said what I did. Most people in the military who see combat, are footsoldiers and otherwise low-ranking operatives, not the people who orchestrate the wars themselves. Therefore most combatants are not murderers (unless they commit what are called "war crimes", which I would define as INTENTIONALLY killing non-combatant civilians--and I know that line can be rather blurry sometimes).

Of course, I define "murder" more keenly than just "killing"--as most people likewise do.

 

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by Immortal
fearlessleader and I share similar beliefs.

Akka and I share similar beliefs.

By the way, you are making a fool of yourself, FL2, and I tend to believe anyone who could support your ridiculous so-called "debating" is a fool, too.

 

[Switch625]

When it comes to this particular subject, why can't either side of the debate be reasonable and civil? Just once, I'd like to see an abortion debate without name calling and vitriol. I can't decide what side to take, because both sides repulse me with their tactics.

 

[Grisu]

Originally posted by Switch625
When it comes to this particular subject, why can't either side of the debate be reasonable and civil? Just once, I'd like to see an abortion debate without name calling and vitriol. I can't decide what side to take, because both sides repulse me with their tactics.

won't happen. this topic is much too emotional for some participants to remain calm, sadly.